Bringing Recovery Housing to Scale in Ohio: Lessons Learned

Abstract

Although recovery housing is limited and has not been integrated into many housing and treatment continuums, there is growing consensus about its importance for various subpopulations. Developing consistent definitions, program models, funding streams, networks of recovery housing providers, and collaborations among recovery-oriented systems of care will reduce misperceptions and enhance the likelihood that recovery housing will be expanded.

Problems and service needs among ex-offenders with HIV risk behaviors entering sober living recovery homes

“…Moreover, both housing status and housing stability predicted a variety of problem areas controlling for demographic factors. These findings support the growing contention in the broader literature on homelessness that consumer perceptions about housing choices should be considered when providing housing assistance (Paquette & Pannella Winn, 2016; Pannella Winn & Paquette, 2016). …”

Housing Status, Psychiatric Symptoms, and Substance Abuse Outcomes Among Sober Living House Residents Over 18 Months

“…The study findings reported here support recommendations made by Paquette and Winn, 17,18 who suggest a better approach to co-occurring problems of substance abuse problems among persons who are homeless or unstably housed would be to provide funding for a broader based system of choices that includes HF, SLHs, and other housing options. The availability of these distinct housing options would provide greater responsivity to individuals.…”

“…It has been argued that a significant limitation in current homeless services is the failure to fund different housing options that would present choices to consumers. 17,18 While the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding or some types of housing programs (e.g., HF), it does not provide funds for others (e.g., SLHs and other types of recovery residences).…”

“…17,18 Studies that have been conducted of SLHs and OHs where significant proportions of the residents were homeless at entry have shown favorable outcomes. For example, in a study of 53 residents of OHs in St. Louis half were found to have a history of homelessness.…”

Integrating Housing and Recovery Support Services: Introduction to the Special Section

“…They highlight key differences between recovery housing, which presumes abstinence, and “housing first” approaches, in which neither abstinence nor service use is a precondition to housing, and offer recommendations for research, policy, and practice to better integrate recovery housing into homelessness service continuums. The article by Winn and Paquette (2016) summarizes findings and presents lessons learned from work conducted in Ohio to identify barriers and opportunities to expand recovery housing in that state. The focus of these papers on the integration of recovery housing into homelessness services, and the challenges of expanding recovery housing, is timely given recent policy initiatives that support innovative housing approaches.…”